Predicting panel attrition in longitudinal HRQoL surveys during the COVID-19 pandemic in the US.

BACKGROUND: Online longitudinal surveys may be subject to potential biases due to sample attrition. This study was designed to identify potential predictors of attrition using a longitudinal panel survey collected during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Three waves of data were collected using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), an online crowd-sourced platform. For each wave, the study sample was collected by referencing a US national representative sample distribution of age, gender, and race, based on US census data. Variables included respondents' demographics, medical history, socioeconomic status, COVID-19 experience, changes of health behavior, productivity, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Results were compared to pre-pandemic US norms. Measures that predicted attrition at different times of the pandemic were identified via logistic regression with stepwise selection. RESULTS: 1467 of 2734 wave 1 respondents participated in wave 2 and, 964 of 2454 wave 2 respondents participated in wave 3. Younger age group, Hispanic origin (p ≤ 0.001) and higher self-rated survey difficulty (p ≤ 0.002) consistently predicted attrition in the following wave. COVID-19 experience, employment, productivity, and limited physical activities were commonly observed variables correlated with attrition with specific measures varying by time periods. From wave 1, mental health conditions, average daily hours worked (p = 0.004), and COVID-19 impact on work productivity (p < 0.001) were associated with a higher attrition rate at wave 2, additional to the aforementioned factors. From wave 2, support of social distancing (p = 0.032), being Republican (p < 0.001), and having just enough money to make ends meet (p = 0.003) were associated with predicted attrition at wave 3. CONCLUSIONS: Attrition in this longitudinal panel survey was not random. Besides commonly identified demographic factors that contribute to panel attrition, COVID-19 presented novel opportunities to address sample biases by correlating attrition with additional behavioral and HRQoL factors in a constantly evolving environment. While age, ethnicity, and survey difficulty consistently predicted attrition, other factors, such as COVID-19 experience, changes of employment, productivity, physical health, mental health, and financial situation impacted panel attrition during the pandemic at various degrees.

Fexapotide triflutate vs oral pharmacotherapy as initial therapy for moderate-to-severe benign prostate hyperplasia patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: To assess the price range in which fexapotide triflutate (FT), a novel injectable, is cost-effective relative to current oral pharmacotherapy (5 α-reductase inhibitor, α-blocker, 5 α-reductase inhibitor and α-blocker combination therapy) as initial therapy followed by surgery for moderate-to-severe benign prostate hyperplasia patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (BPH-LUTS). METHODS: We developed a microsimulation decision-analytic model to track the progression of BPH-LUTS and associated costs and quality-adjusted life years in the target population. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from Medicare's perspective with a time horizon of 4 years using 2019 US dollars for all costs. The microsimulation model considered treatment patterns associated with nonadherence to oral medication and progression to surgery. Model parameters were estimated from large randomized controlled trials, literature and expert opinion. For each initial treatment option, simulations were performed with 1000 iterations, with 1000 patients per iteration. RESULTS: Three upfront oral pharmacotherapy options are close in cost-effectiveness, with combination therapy being the most cost-effective option. Relative to upfront oral pharmacotherapy options, FT slightly increases quality-adjusted life years (QALY) per patient (1.870 (95% CI, 1.868 to 1.872) vs. 1.957 (95% CI, 1.955 to 1.959) QALYs). Under the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY, at price per injection of $14,000, FT is about as cost-effective as upfront oral pharmacotherapy options with net monetary benefit (NMB) $279,168.54. Under the WTP threshold of $50,000 per QALY, at price per injection of $5,000, FT is about as cost-effective as upfront oral pharmacotherapy options with NMB $92,135.18. In an alternative 10-year time horizon scenario, FT price per injection at $11,000 and $4,500 makes FT as cost-effective as oral pharmacotherapies. One-way sensitivity analysis showed this result is most sensitive to upfront therapy prices, FT efficacy and initial IPSS. At price per injections of $5,000, $10,000 and $15,000, the probability that FT is either cost-effective or dominant compared to upfront oral pharmacotherapy options using a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY is 100%, 93% and 40%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to upfront oral pharmacotherapy options, FT would be cost-effective at a price per injection below $14,000, assuming a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

Diagnosing newborns with suspected mitochondrial disorders: an economic evaluation comparing early exome sequencing to current typical care.

PURPOSE: To determine the value of early exome sequencing (eES) relative to the current typical care (TC) in the diagnosis of newborns with suspected severe mitochondrial disorders (MitD). METHODS: We used a decision tree-Markov hybrid to model neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)-related outcomes and costs, lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years among patients with MitD. Probabilities, costs, and utilities were populated using published literature, expert opinion, and the Pediatric Health Information System database. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and net monetary benefits (NMB) were calculated from lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years for singleton and trio eES, and TC. Robustness was assessed using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). Scenario analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: Findings indicate trio eES is a cost-minimizing and cost-effective alternative to current TC. Diagnostic probabilities and NICU length-of-stay were the most sensitive model parameters. Base case analysis demonstrates trio eES has the highest incremental NMB, and PSA demonstrates trio eES had the highest likelihood of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $200,000 relative to TC, singleton eES, and no ES. CONCLUSION: Trio and singleton eES are cost-effective and cost-minimizing alternatives to current TC in diagnosing newborns suspected of having a severe MitD.

A US Population Health Survey on the Impact of COVID-19 Using the EQ-5D-5L.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in negative impacts on the economy, population health, and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of COVID-19 on US population HRQoL using the EQ-5D-5L. DESIGN: We surveyed respondents on physical and mental health, demographics, socioeconomics, brief medical history, current COVID-19 status, sleep, dietary, financial, and spending changes. Results were compared to online and face-to-face US population norms. Predictors of EQ-5D-5L utility were analyzed using both standard and post-lasso OLS regressions. Robustness of regression coefficients against unmeasured confounding was analyzed using the E-Value sensitivity analysis. SUBJECTS: Amazon MTurk workers (n=2776) in the USA. MAIN MEASURES: EQ-5D-5L utility and VAS scores by age group. KEY RESULTS: We received n=2746 responses. Subjects 18-24 years reported lower mean (SD) health utility (0.752 (0.281)) compared with both online (0.844 (0.184), p=0.001) and face-to-face norms (0.919 (0.127), p<0.001). Among ages 25-34, utility was worse compared to face-to-face norms only (0.825 (0.235) vs. 0.911 (0.111), p<0.001). For ages 35-64, utility was better during pandemic compared to online norms (0.845 (0.195) vs. 0.794 (0.247), p<0.001). At age 65+, utility values (0.827 (0.213)) were similar across all samples. VAS scores were worse for all age groups (p<0.005) except ages 45-54. Increasing age and income were correlated with increased utility, while being Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, Hispanic, married, living alone, having history of chronic illness or self-reported depression, experiencing COVID-19-like symptoms, having a family member diagnosed with COVID-19, fear of COVID-19, being underweight, and living in California were associated with worse utility scores. Results were robust to unmeasured confounding. CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL decreased during the pandemic compared to US population norms, especially for ages 18-24. The mental health impact of COVID-19 is significant and falls primarily on younger adults whose health outcomes may have been overlooked based on policy initiatives to date.

Where Do We Go From Here? A Framework for Using Susceptible-Infectious-Recovered Models for Policy Making in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

OBJECTIVES: Throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, susceptible-infectious-recovered (SIR) modeling has been the preeminent modeling method to inform policy making worldwide. Nevertheless, the usefulness of such models has been subject to controversy. An evolution in the epidemiological modeling field is urgently needed, beginning with an agreed-upon set of modeling standards for policy recommendations. The objective of this article is to propose a set of modeling standards to support policy decision making. METHODS: We identify and describe 5 broad standards: transparency, heterogeneity, calibration and validation, cost-benefit analysis, and model obsolescence and recalibration. We give methodological recommendations and provide examples in the literature that employ these standards well. We also develop and demonstrate a modeling practices checklist using existing coronavirus disease 2019 literature that can be employed by readers, authors, and reviewers to evaluate and compare policy modeling literature along our formulated standards. RESULTS: We graded 16 articles using our checklist. On average, the articles met 6.81 of our 19 categories (36.7%). No articles contained any cost-benefit analyses and few were adequately transparent. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant room for improvement in modeling pandemic policy. Issues often arise from a lack of transparency, poor modeling assumptions, lack of a system-wide perspective in modeling, and lack of flexibility in the academic system to rapidly iterate modeling as new information becomes available. In anticipation of future challenges, we encourage the modeling community at large to contribute toward the refinement and consensus of a shared set of standards for infectious disease policy modeling.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Four Common Diagnostic Methods for Clostridioides difficile Infection.

BACKGROUND: No studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of single and two-step different diagnostic test strategies for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), including direct and indirect costs. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of commonly available diagnostic tests for CDI including nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) alone, glutamate dehydrogenase followed by enzyme immunoassay for toxin (GDH/EIA), GDH then NAAT (GDH/NAAT), and NAAT then EIA (NAAT/EIA). DESIGN: Decision tree model from the US societal perspective with inputs derived from the literature. Willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. To assess the impact of uncertainty in model inputs on the findings, we performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. PARTICIPANTS: We conducted the analysis to represent a population aged 65 years old with diarrhea who received a CDI diagnostic test. MAIN MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB). KEY RESULTS: NAAT alone was the most cost-effective approach overall; GDH/NAAT was the most cost-effective two-step option. NAAT alone led to the highest QALYs gained, at an incremental cost of $54,547 (vs. GDH/NAAT), $55,410 (vs. GDH/EIA), and $50,231 (vs. NAAT/EIA) per QALY gained. NAAT/EIA was not cost-effective compared to any other strategy. GDH/NAAT resulted in a higher QALY compared to GDH/EIA, at an incremental cost of $96,841 per QALY gained. Variability in the likelihood of comorbidities, CDI probability, and age at disease onset did not substantially change the results. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that results were most sensitive to likelihood of recurrence, followed by CDI mortality rate and probability of severe CDI. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored known uncertainties in the base case and confirmed the robustness of the results. CONCLUSIONS: NAAT alone and GDH/NAAT (among the two-step options) were the most cost-effective diagnostic test approaches for CDI.

Behavioral Economics Interventions to Improve Outpatient Antibiotic Prescribing for Acute Respiratory Infections: a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Behavioral economics interventions have been shown to effectively reduce the rates of inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions for acute respiratory infections (ARIs). OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of three behavioral economic interventions designed to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions for ARIs. DESIGN: Thirty-year Markov model from the US societal perspective with inputs derived from the literature and CDC surveillance data. SUBJECTS: Forty-five-year-old adults with signs and symptoms of ARI presenting to a healthcare provider. INTERVENTIONS: (1) Provider education on guidelines for the appropriate treatment of ARIs; (2) Suggested Alternatives, which utilizes computerized clinical decision support to suggest non-antibiotic treatment choices in lieu of antibiotics; (3) Accountable Justification, which mandates free-text justification into the patient's electronic health record when antibiotics are prescribed; and (4) Peer Comparison, which sends a periodic email to prescribers about his/her rate of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing relative to clinician colleagues. MAIN MEASURES: Discounted costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. KEY RESULTS: Each intervention has lower costs but higher QALYs compared to provider education. Total costs for each intervention were $178.21, $173.22, $172.82, and $172.52, and total QALYs were 14.68, 14.73, 14.74, and 14.74 for the control, Suggested Alternatives, Accountable Justification, and Peer Comparison groups, respectively. Results were most sensitive to the quality-of-life of the uninfected state, and the likelihood and costs for antibiotic-associated adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Behavioral economics interventions can be cost-effective strategies for reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions by reducing healthcare resource utilization.

Now Is the Time for Transparency in Value-Based Healthcare Decision Modeling.

In contrast to many other countries, during the 20 years since the founding of Value in Health, the United States has moved further away from using value-based healthcare decision modeling (VHDM) for drugs and other medical care choices. US public and private health plans can be typically characterized as using "budget impact" decision making rather than VHDM, with drugs having low per-member per-month spending likely to be covered and reimbursed regardless of value. Orphan drugs and specialty drugs with relatively few patients (eg, end-stage cancer drugs) are often covered, whether cost-effective or not, because health plans want to avoid negative publicity. Although there are many explanations for the poor US uptake of VHDM, a key reason is that VHDM models and data often lack transparency and are not generally made available to researchers for independent verification and reproducibility. This violates the scientific method, and is counter to the stated position of the National Academy of Sciences and the top journals in the sciences and social sciences. Value in Health and related peer-reviewed journals could make a key contribution to improving scientific rigor and real-world healthcare decision-maker acceptability by requiring that VHDM models, source code, and data used in published articles be made freely available to interested readers.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Sequential Treatment of Abaloparatide Followed by Alendronate Versus Teriparatide Followed by Alendronate in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration has recently approved abaloparatide (ABL) for treatment of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) at high risk of fracture. With increasing health care spending and drug prices, it is important to quantify the value of newly available treatment options for PMO. OBJECTIVE: To determine cost-effectiveness of ABL compared with teriparatide (TPTD) for treatment of women with PMO in the United States. METHODS: A discrete-event simulation (DES) model was developed to assess cost-effectiveness of ABL from the US health care perspective. The model included three 18-month treatment strategies with either placebo (PBO), TPTD, or ABL, all followed by additional 5-year treatment with alendronate (ALN). High-risk patients were defined as women with PMO ⩾65 years old with a prior vertebral fracture. Baseline clinical event rates, risk reductions, and patient characteristics were based on the Abaloparatide Comparator Trial in Vertebral Endpoints (ACTIVE) trial. RESULTS: Over a 10-year period, the DES model yielded average total discounted per-patient costs of $10 212, $46 783, and $26 837 and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 6.742, 6.781, and 6.792 for PBO/ALN, TPTD/ALN, and ABL/ALN, respectively. Compared with TPTD/ALN, ABL/ALN accrued higher QALYs at lower cost and produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $333 266/QALY relative to PBO/ALN. In high-risk women, ABL/ALN also had more QALYs and less cost over TPTD/ALN and yielded an ICER of $188 891/QALY relative to PBO/ALN. Conclusion and Relevance: ABL is a dominant treatment strategy over TPTD. In women with PMO at high risk of fracture, ABL is an alternative cost-effective treatment.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of reslizumab in the treatment of poorly controlled eosinophilic asthma.

Introduction: Poorly controlled severe eosinophilic asthma is difficult and costly to manage. Reslizumab, an add-on treatment for adults with severe eosinophilic asthma, reduces the number of exacerbations and improves the quality of life (QoL). The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of reslizumab. Methods: A Markov model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of add-on reslizumab with the standard-of-care (SOC) from the US societal perspective over a five-year time horizon. Efficacy and safety inputs for the model were based on data from two clinical trials (NCT01287039 and NCT01285323). Other model inputs, including mortality rates, costs, and utility, were estimated from literature, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). One-way, threshold, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed. Adherence, treatment response, and the placebo effect were evaluated in separate scenario analyses. Results: The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $697 403 (2017 USD) per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). In the PSA, reslizumab becomes cost-effective in 50% of the iterations at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $689 000. The model is most sensitive to the QoL improvement with reslizumab treatment in the one-way and threshold analyses. The response and adherence models had lower ICERs than the base model but still above $500 000. The ICER of the placebo effect model was $29 820. Conclusions: The improvement in QoL and exacerbation rates with reslizumab are associated with high costs, making reslizumab unlikely to be cost-effective at the $200 000 WTP threshold.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Technology-Facilitated Depression Care Management Adoption Model in Safety-Net Primary Care Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The Diabetes-Depression Care-Management Adoption Trial is a translational study of safety-net primary care predominantly Hispanic/Latino patients with type 2 diabetes in collaboration with the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an information and communication technology (ICT)-facilitated depression care management program. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness of the ICT-facilitated care (TC) delivery model was evaluated relative to a usual care (UC) and a supported care (SC) model. TC added automated low-intensity periodic depression assessment calls to patients. Patient-reported outcomes included the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey converted into quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the 9-Item Patient Health Questionnaire-calculated depression-free days (DFDs). Costs and outcomes data were collected over a 24-month period (-6 to 0 months baseline, 0 to 18 months study intervention). RESULTS: A sample of 1406 patients (484 in UC, 480 in SC, and 442 in TC) was enrolled in the nonrandomized trial. TC had a significant improvement in DFDs (17.3; P = 0.011) and significantly greater 12-Item Short Form Health Survey utility improvement (2.1%; P = 0.031) compared with UC. Medical costs were statistically significantly lower for TC (-$2328; P = 0.001) relative to UC but not significantly lower than for SC. TC had more than a 50% probability of being cost-effective relative to SC at willingness-to-pay thresholds of more than $50,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: An ICT-facilitated depression care (TC) delivery model improved QALYs, DFDs, and medical costs. It was cost-effective compared with SC and dominant compared with UC.

Impact of drug substitution on cost of care: an example of economic analysis of cetuximab versus panitumumab.

BACKGROUND: The alarming increase in the cost of cancer care is forcing all stakeholders to re-evaluate their approach to treatment. Drugs are the main contributor to the cost. To evaluate the significance of drug substitution on the cost of care we assessed the economic value of panitumumab vs. cetuximab in chemo-refractory metastatic CRC (mCRC) with wild-type KRAS from a US societal perspective. METHODS: We developed a Markov model with three health states: progression-free, progressive, and death. We calculated the transition probabilities between states using the ASPECCT trial report and US life tables. Costs of drug and administration were based on the Medicare reimbursement rates. Published data were used for cost of toxicities and utilities. All costs were converted to 2017 US dollars. The model used quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to measure health outcomes for each treatment option. RESULTS: Panitumumab and cetuximab produced 0.45 QALYs at a per patient cost of $66,006 and $71,956, respectively. The incremental net monetary benefit of panitumumab compared to cetuximab is $5237 under a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000. The model showed robustness to one-way sensitivity analyses and various alternative scenarios and was found to be most sensitive to the cost of cetuximab. CONCLUSIONS: Panitumumab can lower the cost of care without impacting outcomes in chemo-refractory mCRC settings. This finding provides a strong argument to consider panitumumab in lieu of cetuximab in these patients.

Comparative Effectiveness of a Technology-Facilitated Depression Care Management Model in Safety-Net Primary Care Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: 6-Month Outcomes of a Large Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Comorbid depression is a significant challenge for safety-net primary care systems. Team-based collaborative depression care is effective, but complex system factors in safety-net organizations impede adoption and result in persistent disparities in outcomes. Diabetes-Depression Care-management Adoption Trial (DCAT) evaluated whether depression care could be significantly improved by harnessing information and communication technologies to automate routine screening and monitoring of patient symptoms and treatment adherence and allow timely communication with providers. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare 6-month outcomes of a technology-facilitated care model with a usual care model and a supported care model that involved team-based collaborative depression care for safety-net primary care adult patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: DCAT is a translational study in collaboration with Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, the second largest safety-net care system in the United States. A comparative effectiveness study with quasi-experimental design was conducted in three groups of adult patients with type 2 diabetes to compare three delivery models: usual care, supported care, and technology-facilitated care. Six-month outcomes included depression and diabetes care measures and patient-reported outcomes. Comparative treatment effects were estimated by linear or logistic regression models that used generalized propensity scores to adjust for sampling bias inherent in the nonrandomized design. RESULTS: DCAT enrolled 1406 patients (484 in usual care, 480 in supported care, and 442 in technology-facilitated care), most of whom were Hispanic or Latino and female. Compared with usual care, both the supported care and technology-facilitated care groups were associated with significant reduction in depressive symptoms measured by scores on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (least squares estimate, LSE: usual care=6.35, supported care=5.05, technology-facilitated care=5.16; P value: supported care vs usual care=.02, technology-facilitated care vs usual care=.02); decreased prevalence of major depression (odds ratio, OR: supported care vs usual care=0.45, technology-facilitated care vs usual care=0.33; P value: supported care vs usual care=.02, technology-facilitated care vs usual care=.007); and reduced functional disability as measured by Sheehan Disability Scale scores (LSE: usual care=3.21, supported care=2.61, technology-facilitated care=2.59; P value: supported care vs usual care=.04, technology-facilitated care vs usual care=.03). Technology-facilitated care was significantly associated with depression remission (technology-facilitated care vs usual care: OR=2.98, P=.04); increased satisfaction with care for emotional problems among depressed patients (LSE: usual care=3.20, technology-facilitated care=3.70; P=.05); reduced total cholesterol level (LSE: usual care=176.40, technology-facilitated care=160.46; P=.01); improved satisfaction with diabetes care (LSE: usual care=4.01, technology-facilitated care=4.20; P=.05); and increased odds of taking an glycated hemoglobin test (technology-facilitated care vs usual care: OR=3.40, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both the technology-facilitated care and supported care delivery models showed potential to improve 6-month depression and functional disability outcomes. The technology-facilitated care model has a greater likelihood to improve depression remission, patient satisfaction, and diabetes care quality.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Preexposure Prophylaxis for the Prevention of HIV Among Los Angeles County Men Who Have Sex With Men.

BACKGROUND: Substantial gaps remain in understanding the trade-offs between the costs and benefits of choosing alternative human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention strategies, including test-and-treat (expanded HIV testing combined with immediate treatment) and PrEP (initiation of preexposure prophylaxis by high-risk uninfected individuals) strategies. METHODS: We develop a mathematical epidemiological model to simulate HIV incidence among men residing in Los Angeles County, California, aged 15-65 years, who have sex with men. We combine these incidence data with an economic model to estimate the discounted cost, effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of various HIV prevention strategies using a societal perspective and a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: PrEP and test-and-treat yield the largest reductions in HIV incidence, and are highly cost-effective ($27 863/QALY and $19 302/QALY, respectively) relative to status quo and at a US willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY saved. Status quo and 12 test-and-treat and PrEP strategies determine the frontier for efficient decisions. More aggressive strategies are costlier, but more effective, albeit with diminishing returns. The relative effectiveness of PrEP is sensitive to the initial HIV prevalence rate, PrEP and antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence and initiation rates, the probabilities of HIV transmission, and the rates of sexual partner mixing. CONCLUSIONS: PrEP and test-and-treat offer cost-effective alternatives to the status quo. The success of these strategies depends on ART and PrEP adherence and initiation rates. The lack of evidence on adherence behaviors toward PrEP, therefore, warrants further studies.

Effect of Behavioral Interventions on Inappropriate Antibiotic Prescribing Among Primary Care Practices: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Interventions based on behavioral science might reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. OBJECTIVE: To assess effects of behavioral interventions and rates of inappropriate (not guideline-concordant) antibiotic prescribing during ambulatory visits for acute respiratory tract infections. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cluster randomized clinical trial conducted among 47 primary care practices in Boston and Los Angeles. Participants were 248 enrolled clinicians randomized to receive 0, 1, 2, or 3 interventions for 18 months. All clinicians received education on antibiotic prescribing guidelines on enrollment. Interventions began between November 1, 2011, and October 1, 2012. Follow-up for the latest-starting sites ended on April 1, 2014. Adult patients with comorbidities and concomitant infections were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: Three behavioral interventions, implemented alone or in combination: suggested alternatives presented electronic order sets suggesting nonantibiotic treatments; accountable justification prompted clinicians to enter free-text justifications for prescribing antibiotics into patients' electronic health records; peer comparison sent emails to clinicians that compared their antibiotic prescribing rates with those of "top performers" (those with the lowest inappropriate prescribing rates). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Antibiotic prescribing rates for visits with antibiotic-inappropriate diagnoses (nonspecific upper respiratory tract infections, acute bronchitis, and influenza) from 18 months preintervention to 18 months afterward, adjusting each intervention's effects for co-occurring interventions and preintervention trends, with random effects for practices and clinicians. RESULTS: There were 14,753 visits (mean patient age, 47 years; 69% women) for antibiotic-inappropriate acute respiratory tract infections during the baseline period and 16,959 visits (mean patient age, 48 years; 67% women) during the intervention period. Mean antibiotic prescribing rates decreased from 24.1% at intervention start to 13.1% at intervention month 18 (absolute difference, -11.0%) for control practices; from 22.1% to 6.1% (absolute difference, -16.0%) for suggested alternatives (difference in differences, -5.0% [95% CI, -7.8% to 0.1%]; P = .66 for differences in trajectories); from 23.2% to 5.2% (absolute difference, -18.1%) for accountable justification (difference in differences, -7.0% [95% CI, -9.1% to -2.9%]; P < .001); and from 19.9% to 3.7% (absolute difference, -16.3%) for peer comparison (difference in differences, -5.2% [95% CI, -6.9% to -1.6%]; P < .001). There were no statistically significant interactions (neither synergy nor interference) between interventions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among primary care practices, the use of accountable justification and peer comparison as behavioral interventions resulted in lower rates of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01454947.

Cost-effectiveness of adding bevacizumab to first line therapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, from a societal perspective, the cost-effectiveness of adding bevacizumab to first-line therapy based on outcomes from the GOG-218 and ICON-7 trials. METHODS: A three-state Markov model was used. The time horizon was until the death of 99% of the initial cohort of 1000 individuals. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at an annual rate of 3%. All costs were adjusted to 2013 USD. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was reported as incremental cost per QALY gained. The robustness of the result was checked with one-way sensitivity analyses and for relevant clinical situations (i.e. varying the drug of choice to treat cancer recurrence). Subgroup analysis was conducted to identify subgroup of population for whom the strategy could be cost-effective. The potential impact of biosimilar bevacizumab was considered, using a 30% price reduction. RESULTS: For the GOG-218 study protocol, widely followed in US, the addition of bevacizumab results in an ICER of $2,420,691/QALY. For the ICON-7 study protocol, the ICER is $225,515/QALY. The results of the model were sensitive to the quality of life (QoL) and the median progression free survival (PFS). Biosimilar bevacizumab didn't reduce cost sufficiently to change conclusions. First-line augmentation is cost-effective, with biosimilar bevacizumab, for stage IV patients ($126,169/QALY), ECOG PS1 patients ($116,575/QALY) and for patients with suboptimal residual disease ($122,822/QALY) as per the ICON-7 protocol. CONCLUSION: Addition of bevacizumab, by in large, is cost-ineffective. It can become cost-effective with the ICON-7 protocol, in patients at high risk of progression using biosimilar bevacizumab.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of abiraterone and sipuleucel-T in asymptomatic metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, 0% to 20% experience disease progression to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Recently, 4 novel therapies have been introduced for the treatment of mCRPC; of these, abiraterone and sipuleucel-T have been studied in the asymptomatic, pre-docetaxel population. Both have shown clinical benefits compared with placebo. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of abiraterone acetate and sipuleucel-T compared with prednisone in asymptomatic, pre-docetaxel mCRPC from a US societal perspective. A Markov model was constructed to simulate stable disease, progressed disease, and death. Survival and event rates were derived from published clinical trial data. Costs were derived from the literature and government reimbursement schedules. Outcomes were measured as average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and net monetary benefits (NMBs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model. The base-case ACER was $114K/quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) for abiraterone, $85K/QALY for sipuleucel-T, and $31K/QALY for prednisone. The base-case ICER was $389K/QALY for abiraterone and $547K/QALY for sipuleucel-T. Prednisone dominates both abiraterone and sipuleucel-T in terms of NMB at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $400K or less. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the model was most sensitive to overall survival and utility inputs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed abiraterone to be cost-effective 50% or more of the time at a WTP of greater than $400K, whereas sipuleucel-T was cost-effective 50% or more of the time at a WTP of greater than $270K. Neither abiraterone nor sipuleucel-T was found to be cost-effective compared with prednisone in the treatment of asymptomatic, pre-docetaxel mCRPC.

Implementing trials of complex interventions in community settings: the USC-Rancho Los Amigos pressure ulcer prevention study (PUPS).

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials of complex, non-pharmacologic interventions implemented in home and community settings, such as the University of Southern California (USC)-Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center (RLANRC) Pressure Ulcer Prevention Study (PUPS), present unique challenges with respect to (1) participant recruitment and retention, (2) intervention delivery and fidelity, (3) randomization and assessment, and (4) potential inadvertent treatment effects. PURPOSE: We describe the methods employed to address the challenges confronted in implementing PUPS. In this randomized controlled trial, we are assessing the efficacy of a complex, preventive intervention in reducing the incidence of, and costs associated with, the development of medically serious pressure ulcers in people with spinal cord injury. METHODS: Individuals with spinal cord injury recruited from RLANRC were assigned to either a 12-month preventive intervention group or a standard care control group. The primary outcome is the incidence of serious pressure ulcers with secondary endpoints including ulcer-related surgeries, medical treatment costs, and quality of life. These outcomes are assessed at 12 and 24 months after randomization. Additionally, we are studying the mediating mechanisms that account for intervention outcomes. RESULTS: PUPS has been successfully implemented, including recruitment of the target sample size of 170 participants, assurance of the integrity of intervention protocol delivery with an average 90% treatment adherence rate, and enactment of the assessment plan. However, implementation has been replete with challenges. To meet recruitment goals, we instituted a five-pronged approach customized for an underserved, ethnically diverse population. In intervention delivery, we increased staff time to overcome economic and cultural barriers to retention and adherence. To ensure treatment fidelity and replicability, we monitored intervention protocol delivery in accordance with a rigorous plan. Finally, we have overcome unanticipated assessment and design concerns related to (1) determining pressure ulcer incidence/severity, (2) randomization imbalance, and (3) inadvertent potential control group contamination. LIMITATIONS: We have addressed the most daunting challenges encountered in the recruitment, assessment, and intervention phases of PUPS. Some challenges and solutions may not apply to trials conducted in other settings. CONCLUSIONS: Overcoming challenges has required a multifaceted approach incorporating individualization, flexibility, and persistence, as well as the ability to implement needed mid-course corrections.

Incremental expenditure of biologic disease modifying antirheumatic treatment using instrumental variables in panel data.

In health care, decision makers are generally interested in simultaneous comparisons among multiple treatments or interventions available as treatment choices in real-world clinical setting. The lack of random assignment to treatment in real-world clinical settings leads to selection-bias issues when evaluating the marginal benefits of treatment. The application of instrumental variables (IV) estimation to mitigate selection bias has traditionally been limited to comparing only two treatments/interventions concurrently. Using the case of biologic treatment in rheumatoid arthritis, we describe a generalized method of moments (GMM)-based panel data IV (IV-GMM) framework, to simultaneously estimate multiple treatment effects in the presence of time-varying selection bias and time-invariant heterogeneity. To satisfy the order and rank conditions for identification with multiple endogeneity, we propose lagged values of each treatment as excluded instruments. We evaluate the validity of the IV estimation assumptions on instrument relevance and exogeneity. Results indicate that the IV-GMM model offers enhanced control over selection bias and heterogeneity, and more importantly the panel data framework can provide valid excluded instruments that satisfy the order and rank conditions for identification when dealing with multiple endogenous variables. The approach outlined in this article has broad application for comparative effectiveness and health technology assessment involving multiple treatments/interventions using real-world nonexperimental data.